About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 9
MSNBCW 8
CSPAN 2
CSPAN2 2
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)
? the pentagon. >> we're only a few weeks away from this. >> it doesn't make any political sense. >> it would be brutal for everybody. >> devastatiing effects on the economy. >> pushes us into a second recession, something so terri e terrible -- >> all right. settle down. >> they recognize that the sequester is a bad idea. >> i don't like the sequester. >> we see the republicans playing games. >> this is the wrong time for sequest sequestration. >> both sides are sort of okay with it. >> doing nothing is easier than doing something. >> republicans say cuts but no taxes. >> these cuts cost job. >> they don't even want to talk about it. >> who are the monsters who came up with the sequestration idea? >> guess what, they all support it. congress put it into place to force themselves to agree. >> dumbe esest blame game in washington. >>> it's time for another round of republican would you rather. we'll call this the sequester edition. today's question, would you rather go up against al qaeda or grover norquist? republican senator lindsey graham said al qaeda would love the defense cuts in the se
on the back as many people stated down in newtown. i'm here to speak up for my son. >>> at the pentagon, chuck hagel finally takes over as defense chief. >> i will do everything in my power to be the kind of leader that you expect and you deserve. also, the kind of leader the country expects and deserves. >>> john kerry takes paris. [ speaking foreign language ] >> not bad at all. good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington in english today. the historic voting rights act could be in danger as a number of supreme court justices overturned the 1965 law. nbcs justice correspondent pete williams joins me now from the supreme court. pete, from the arguments today, what is your impression of what way the court might be moving? >> well, you know, the court didn't come with a blank slate. four years ago, the court looked at the same question and laid down a marker. we were watching to see if the justices that were skeptical then changed their mind? the answer is no. five votes to strike down a key part of the voting rights act. it's a law that requires states with a history of discrimination to get p
. jenna: we researched the pentagon for a independent staff we haven't got it yet. we have the research department said if we had revisions in afghanistan over the years and we haven't found any. they told the associated press doesn't tell the full story of progress against the taliban. >> fair enough. it is a snapshot, not the movie. once again i think it is pretty important when the administration uses this. panetta said last year that attacks were down in afghanistan in 2012. it doesn't seem to be the case. if we need to get more answers. jenna: we'll look for more information. we continue to cover the story throughout the day here on fox news. peter, thanks for your insight. >> thanks for having me. jon: one town's attempt to go green has some folks seeing red amid complaints wind turbines are making people sick. all this could end up costing taxpayers millions. we're live with that story. >>> plus, what do you get when you cross a rodeo, kids and sheep? the answer is on the way. [ male announcer ] how do you measure happiness? by the armful? by the barrelful? e carful? how about...
about questions for someone who is going to be running the pentagon. >> sam? >> well, i slightly disagree with robert. >> i thought you might. >> you know, actually it's funny because some of these questions did produce interesting, illustrative answers. for instance, when ron johnson got hillary clinton to say what difference does it make? well, it does make a difference. the problem i found with the questions was they ended up stepping on the news. they became so demonstrative and so theatrical that they ended up stealing the spotlight from the answers. that did a disservice in some respects to the question. >> is the real story the feeder of the questions or hagel's fumbling performance? i think it's the latter. i think hagel had a dismal performance at that hearing. did he seem competent to run the pentagon? there were a lot of questions even among democrats after that hearing whether he's ready. >> i don't disagree with that. i think hagel had a really poor performance. what i'm saying is for these senators -- if you looked at what ted cruz was asking about, association with
. >> you heard chuck haegle say, that he saw that film. two days after that, he changed the pentagon policy and announced that rape allegations would be moved out of the direct line of command that has been so successful of suppressing these allegations and each branch of the military will have a special unit for these allegations. this is something that the secretary of defense has the power to do on his own authority. but most senators have no interest in that. in this rape crisis in the american military and they wasted their time today talking about policy questions that have nothing to do with being secretary of defense. joining me now alex wagner and eugene robinson. >> alex, in our military today, women are actually putting their lives at risk simply bien listing. and we have to sit there today and watch the senators wander all over today about policies that have nothing to do with being secretary of defense when they have this crime crisis right in front of them. >> the reasons for that are two-fold. one is violence perpetrated against women have been ignored by the congress of rece
for the pentagon and cia unless the white house stops what he calls stone walling. i'm john roberts. hour number two of america's news headquarters live from the nation's capital starts right now. let's go to steve centanni who has been following the story of senator graham. good afternoon. >> good afternoon, john. talk this morning that there was talk on the is sunday talk shows that two important are nominations can be held up until the white house answers more questions about benghazi. during the attack in benghazi senator lindsey graham wants to know whether the president reached out personally to libyan leaders. he said the nomination of chuck hagel and john brennan could be side tracked until senators get the answers they want. while stopping short of supporting a filibuster graham has serious concerns about whether the president did enough to stop that attack that killed four americans. >> i do believe if he had picked up the phone, called the libyan government, these folks could have is gotten out of the airport to the annex and the last two guys may very well be alive and if he did cal
military community where he plans to highlight painful cuts they say for the pentagon and the u.s. navy. but republican leaders calling on the president to quote, stop campaigning and help them solve the problem. but at the moment, there are no meetings planned between any of these sides, the house, the senate, the white house and they're taking friday off as of now. martha: all right. well the looming budget cuts were high on the agenda when the president sat down with the national governors association yesterday. arizona governor jan brewer went "on the record" with greta van susteren to get her impressions exactly what happened at that meeting. here's that. >> you know, he definitely says he wants to work together but obviously he doesn't want to compromise one little bit. bottom line he wants to raise taxes. and he doesn't want to cut. i think the american people believed, that the time now is to start cutting the budget. martha: so when it came to compromising governor brewer went on to say that the president said that the elections were basically behind him and that he was going t
. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our conten
. they don't receive combat pay and it's absolutely ridiculous. so recently, the pentagon established that a woman that serves in combat is entitled to receive all of the things that go with it to show our country's appreciation. so it seems to me that if we're going to have a draft and i really believe that if we did have a draft set up that congress would not be so anxious to the democrats and republicans to put our young people in harm's way. >> tell me why you say that because you're introduced this legislation multiple times and it's clearly something you're very committed to. you bet your life because the people in the congress that allow these things to go on, they have no fear that anyone in their community and their families are going to be making any sacrifice at all. less than 1% of americans, most of whom volunteer for economic reasons paid the price in terms of 6600 lives lost, tens of thousands of people wounded. veterans, american veterans coming home, disoriented, unemploy unemployed, some homeless and no one pays a price. i submit to you, we would not be in iraq, afgh
to the pentagon, but let's be honest, it's been ugly so far. >>> and the country says good-bye to one of its most outspoken and color mayors, ed koch, likes to say how am i doing, history would say he's done a pretty good job of leading new york into a new era. >>> good morning from washington, it's friday, february 1st, 2013. let's get to the first read of the morning. i'll get to the jobs report in a minute, but i want to get to hagel. i want to start there. no doubt chuck hagel had a rough outing before the armed services committee, the question is whether hostility to hagel's nomination breaks down so completely along partisan lines. that he's still able to survive. there's clearly a lot of republican opposition to hagel, some of it may be personal. the white house for now is chalking up the eight painful hours to political theatrics and believe these republican senators were simply tougher on hagel than they were on john kerry or on john brennan because they view hagel as a turncoat, but, wow, did hagel just sit there and allow himself to get flogged. >> i have already stated that i regret t
immediate to both operate inside the pentagon, and that's -- you heard robert gibbs, former press secretary yesterday say it was a little disconcerting watching him give those answers. they made a strategic decision not to have a debate with those republican senators. trying to not start fights, but was he too passive? >> there was a way to push back. david sanger, he could have said i disagree with you about the surge. senator mccain, you're my great friend, but let's talk about what's really going on. we have 66,000 troops at afghanistan right now. he didn't pivot. he didn't push back. he didn't fight. david brooks, your columnist in "the "new york times"" suggested to chuck this weekend that he should even go so far as saying to the president, mr. president, do you have second thoughts? should i withdraw? that's rather more than i would have expected at this point. >> you know, i think there were two remarkable elements to the testimony that former senator hagel gave. he seemed unprepared on basic issues. we were discussing iran before. he had a difficult time even articulating the presi
reasons, the pentagon and the planners have made their own case to the president. and with the new resource problem we confronted in mali, look what it took to support french against al qaeda sub contractors. if we can't do that when in fact americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for . >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that we in effect need to be involved -- . >> the u.s. has been concerned about mali for at least eight nows. -- months only now there's a discussion about where we should do more. >> look, in the time of the great extra cater. we are -- that -- what is threaten, our foreign policy is not manic interventionism right now. that's not what we have to worry about here. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hand. i'm going ask you to identify yourself. keep your question short. let's go to [inaudible] of radio-- and then go to the woman right here in the black and hand the microphone to her. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] that syria is part
of the partnership that the state department has forms with the pentagon first with bob gates and then mike mullen and then leon panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remains a valuable partners on nearly everything we do and we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. and i would be quick to add the u.n., the imf and the world bank and nato are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized, and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and modeled to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short-lived pollutants like black carbon or work with partners like turkey, where the two listed up the first global counterterrorism form. we are also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union in somalia and th
essential. i'm proud of the partnerships the state department has formed with the pentagon. america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remain in valuable partners in nearly everything we do. we've spent energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. the un and world bank and nato are still essentials. all of our institutions and relationships check need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and model to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g-20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition to fight short live pollutants like black carbon. or work with parties where we stood up the first global terrorism forum. we are working with organizations. consider the arab league in libya. even the lower mekong initiative that we created to help reintegrate burma into its neighborhood and try to work across national boundaries on whether dams should or should not be billult. ilt. world, people want to actually show up. a secretary state mig
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)